Just heard from a reliable source that the revival west end production of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Whistle Down The Wind is coming to Broadway September 2007 starring the productions Leading Man Tim Rogers
I saw it in London. The whole show needs to be overhauled and made more interesting.
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
The equity tierred american touring production hasn't even been cast yet. The show will rehearse most likely in August and open on the ROAD in September. You are grossly misinformed.
What, what, what?? I run the Steinman site Bat Out Of Excess and I have not been informed of any Broadway production or tour. I know of a production taking place in the U.S. early 2008, that's all. I would have heard something through RUG or Dream Pollution if this was the case. Checking to confirm tho
Who can explain it, who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons, wise men never try
-South Pacific
The London "revival" was actually just the touring show brought into the Palace for a few months to fill the hole left by the early closure of Woman in White and the start of Spamalot. I saw the show in June and it was a tired, low budget, low impact bore. Didn't grab me at all. The best bit about the show was all the bitching that we were able to do about it.
This production emphatically shouldn't be brought to Broadway - and to be honest, I'm not really sure the show should. I'm sure there are other more deserving shows and British imports than this.
Actually, as I recall the cast was fine. Webber wrote some saccharin sweet pop ballads that were effective enough. "No Matter What" is one that springs to mind.
It's been a while, but here's what I recall: The story was set in the deep South in the 1950s. It was a part of the 1950s deep South where the bars were integrated and blacks and whites happily danced and sang together, so I'm not certain where exactly it was supposed to be. The songs these happy folk sang and danced to sounded oddly like a British mega musical composer doing a lame imitation of old time country music.
The story centered around a cute teenage farm girl who discovers an escaped convict in a barn. She asks who he is and in response to some trauma he shouts out "Jesus". For the rest of the show she assumes that he is Jesus (No I'm not kidding) and brings all her litttle friends to visit with the convict/saviour. At some point the barn burns down and three characters stand around singing all at the same time so you can't understand the lyrics. (This was a blessing.)
I think they added the snake handling later in the run, but there was a puppy who died.
It's been eleven years, but I still want my 2 1/2 hours back!
"I have got to have some professional music!" - Big Edie
I think this show could possibly work, but it needs a vast reimagining. It should be a small character piece(Not ALW's style, but possible-look at Jeeves). And while I enjoy the score very much, it is way too bombastic for the material. Oh yeah, cut the whole puppy thing too.
I saw it in Washington back in the day, and other than a very strong cast, led by Davis Gaines exceptional voice, the show was somewhat of a mess.
But I would at least be interested to see how they've changed it. I find it always intriguing when creators hold on to a show for so long trying to get it "right". While it is probably most often the smartest decision to let it go and move on to a new project, I applaud composers and such for wanting to work out the kinks and make their show a success. I think 'critics' often forget that this is years and years of work that people have invested, and it isn't always so easy to let a show go.
Tech Everlasting: I totally wanted the 2 and a half hours of my life back too! Luckily, because I saw it in the Palace over the summer, the tickets were quite heavily discounted, so I only paid £15 to sit centre stalls, 3 rows back! Draw your own conclusions from the discounting!
The 'London Revival' was an awful production of an average musical (sets, direction, choreography, the lot). I'm sure that they'll invest a bit more money in it for any US production, but unlike the original version, the revival didn't even attempt to hide the flaws inherent in the show.
ETA: All the above is of course only in my opinion
Updated On: 2/26/07 at 08:17 AM
Wasn't this show based on a movie that was set in the English countryside? The first thing I would do is change the setting back to the UK.
Although there were many problems with the book and concept, the inauthentic portrayal of the old time American South and the ersatz country music was glaring and insulting.
Just picture Dolly Parton writing an English Madrigal set in the 16th century.
"I have got to have some professional music!" - Big Edie
Um . . . I don't see it at "inaunthentic." This isn't set in a major city in the south, it's set a small country bumpkin' town. How/why do you think it is insulting?
"They're eating her and then they're going to eat me. OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!" -Troll 2
What was the biggest issue in the South of this era?
There's no need to focus on race in this sort of show, but portraying the local honky tonk as fully integrated was simply bizarre. The songs used in those scenes sounded like a British theater composer doing a crappy imitation of country music, which is just what they were.
Let's send Diane Warren over to England to write "The Henry Purcell Story" and see how they like it.
The "snake handling" business was inexcusable. The whole thing felt like some sort of British theme park "Pirates of the Deep South" ride.
"I have got to have some professional music!" - Big Edie